Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Sinitsyn[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highest ranking of 1385 in singles does not make him notable enough as a tennis player. The vast majority of matches he played as a pro were in qualifying for futures tournaments. Even within the limited category of 'tennis players who went to Durham University' he does not stand out in comparison to Filip Veger (junior grand slam finalist) and Julius Tverijonas (Lithuania Davis Cup team), plus other people who don't even have a wikipedia article but have still been ranked higher than him (Henry Patten, Gabriela Knutson etc). This article has been up since April last year and I'm amazed it has lasted this long Holyisland (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS, even the version before the current controversial changes. I'd have AFD'd this myself had I seen the PROD and de-PROD from last year. Iffy★Chat -- 08:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Satisfies neither WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. Jevansen (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long way short of WP:NBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NTENNIS before and after the current mess that is WP:NSPORTS. The editor that de-PRODded the article last year mentions the subject's college tennis titles, I can't find any sources that have significant coverage beyond statistics websites which is also a requirement to pass WP:NCOLLATH. Bonoahx (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NTENNIS as the player has a higher ranking and notability (several college championships) than a number of players with pages, for example, Eduardo Russi Assumpção. In my opinion stricter guidelines should be implemented for athletes, but this one is sufficiently notable. Sinitskilab (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG as the player has won 8 national championships at 4 different levels of college athletics (identifiable in the sources provided, there might be other mentions of the record the player’s native language). This is an example why stricter guidelines are not necessarily needed. Such self-evident achievements as in the current case should constitute a relevant criterion for page selection. Annkate (talk)) 15:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:NCOLLATH as a 4 time first-team All-American in terms of individual national award requirements. I agree Annkate that the record for national champinships is relevant, but then it should be added to the page. It’s a close call but imo would be a disservice to remove. 0racIeo1O (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep votes above should be discounted entirely. One of them claims that GNG is met but doesn't present a single source that would meet GNG's requirements. Another claims NTENNIS is met because of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and also ignores recent changes to the NSPORTS world. Finally, the NCOLLATH argument is flawed too, as this player did not play in NCAA tennis tournaments, the only level relevant to NCOLLATH (and even if I am wrong and he did play NCAA tennis, he didn't achieve anything significant there). Iffy★Chat -- 12:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NCAA All-American results found with a quick search ITA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0racIeo1O (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The top of the page states that those are Division II results. I can't find any evidence of success at NCAA Division I tournaments or any coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE which is required to pass NCOLLATH - I am not particularly familiar with US college athletics so forgive me if "All-American" is something different. Another editor has given Eduardo Russi Assumpção as an example of a player who they believe to have lower notability due to their lower ranking, but don't take into account the fact that their ranking was higher in doubles (let alone the fact that rankings don't dictate notability) and they had been in the main draw of an ATP Tour event, which passes WP:NTENNIS#2. Bonoahx (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd encourage the closer to view the edit histories of the three Keep voters before making a decision. Jevansen (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.